The Lorax is the latest attempt to turn Theodor Geisel's simple yet political tales into blockbusters.

Universal

There are few things people are more inclined to protect than the stories they loved as children. These are books that mattered to us at our most open-hearted and most vulnerable—read to us by beloved parents, teachers, or friends (sometimes over and over again). They taught us how to read, and sometimes how to think. They matter. And there are few authors who have mattered to more children than Dr. Seuss. Random House reports that 600 million Dr. Seuss books have been sold in more than 30 languages, and cultural references to his most indelible creations—including the Grinch and the word "nerd," which he invented—abound.

But it wasn't until recently that Hollywood brought Dr. Seuss to the big screen. Though he signed off on many animated, televised adaptations of his works, Dr. Seuss (real name Theodor Geisel) resisted Hollywood's lucrative offers for decades. But after Geisel's death in 1991, the rights to his works passed to his widow, Audrey, who has since signed off on the production of four feature-length films based on his works: How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The Cat in the Hat, Horton Hears a Who, and this Friday's new release, The Lorax.

Mike Myers's crass interpretation of Cat in the Hat was likened to "an alcoholic clown harassing kids at a birthday party."

Despite the best efforts of some of Hollywood's biggest names, attempts to bring Seuss to the box office have been mediocre at best. It began with Ron Howard's garish live-action adaptation of How the Grinch Stole Christmas, which earned a (very generous) 53 percent positive reviews from critics and became 2000's top-grossing movie of the year. But the film clearly struggled with the limitations of Seuss's children's-book narrative, which makes for a much better animated TV special than a live-action feature film. The film adaptation takes Seuss's whimsical story and pads it out with the trappings of a generic blockbuster, including a tragic back story, an obligatory love interest, and a treacly tie-in single sung by Faith Hill that continues to haunt radios each December.

Neither audiences nor critics were as kind to the follow-up Seuss film: 2003's execrable adaptation of The Cat in the Hat. A feature-length film based on The Cat in the Hat presented even greater challenges than How the Grinch Stole Christmas; the book is deliberately simplistic in plot and language because it was written to help young children learn to read. But it's hard to imagine a more grotesque, less faithful Cat in the Hat than the version that reached theaters in 2003. The Cat in the Hat took the worst elements of How the Grinch Stole Christmas and cranked them up, and film's gross-out humor—due primarily to Mike Myers, whose crass interpretation of the titular Cat was likened to "an alcoholic clown harassing kids at a birthday party" by Movie Gazette—felt like a personal affront to Seuss's child-friendly, career-defining work. Audrey Geisel was so distressed by the film that she resolved never to permit a live-action Seuss adaptation again—a promise that she's kept.

But the makers of the more recent, animated Seuss films—Horton Hears a Who! and The Lorax—have a less obvious but even bigger problem than the simplicity of Seuss's storytelling: the political nature of the original texts. Seuss, who drew more than 400 political cartoons for the leftwing newspaper PM in his lifetime, was sometimes overtly political in his texts—leaving filmmakers to determine just how political their Seuss-based films can afford to be.

The first challenge came with the semi-political Horton Hears a Who! (which Seuss biographer Philip Nel calls a "parable" intended to teach children "that everyone needs to get involved for democracy to work") was routinely co-opted by political organizations, to its author's frustration; when its most famous line- "a person's a person, no matter how small"—was printed on the stationery of a pro-life group, Geisel himself threatened to sue if it wasn't removed. In the end, the so-so film adaptation of Horton Hearts a Who!, which hit theaters in 2008, managed to successfully excise anything that could cause controversy—ending up as an inoffensive, generally entertaining film about teamwork and togetherness.

MORE ON FILM

But TheLorax is a much trickier text to adapt without offending someone. Conservative commentator Lou Dobbs was roundly mocked last week after he criticizedThe Lorax as an attempt to "indoctrinate children." But he's not far off; The Lorax has been an overtly politicized story since its original publication in 1971. The story opens in a bleak, treeless wasteland before flashing back to a time when the same land was a paradise of Eden-esque proportions. The story's pro-industry character, The Once-ler, tells The Lorax "Business is business! And business must grow" as he systemically destroys the Truffula Tree-based ecosystem. The Once-ler later goes on an anti-Lorax rant that could easily pass as an excerpt from the minutes of a Tea Party meeting:

"All you do is yap-yap and say, 'Bad! Bad! Bad! Bad!' Well, I have my rights, sir, and I'm telling you, I intend to go on doing just what I do!"

The Lorax has been so effective in its ability to make children concerned about deforestation that the National Wood Flooring Manufacturer's Association commissioned a bizarre, pro-lumber industry parody called Truax, in which a friendly logger convinces the misinformed "Guardbark" that when it comes to deforestation, "things ARE NOT quite as bad as they [seem]!" (Masochists can view a free PDF copy of Truaxhere).

But the film, despite Lou Dobbs's concerned, isn't likely to ruffle quite as many feathers as its source material. It is, after all, a big-budget, mass-market Hollywood release. Seuss purists shouldn't worry about the film adaptation of The Lorax being too political—they should worry about it not being political enough. Universal Studios has already struggled to reconcile The Lorax's environmental message with its mass-marketability; the film's promotional website only added a "go green" section after a petition, started by a class of Massachusetts fourth graders, went viral.

Even with the concessions Universal has made, there's something deeply un-Lorax about the marketing machine behind the Lorax film, which includes "Lorax-approved" disposable diapers, five Lorax­-themed breakfast options at iHop, and a stunningly tone-deaf cross-promotion with a Mazda SUV. The trailer's most prominent environmental message is its suggestion that you pay extra to see the film in "IMAX Tree-D."The trailer for The Lorax credits "the creators of Despicable Me" and "the imagination of Dr. Seuss," but the film seems to belong more to the former than the latter. Additions to the original story include: a motor-scooter chase sequence; a pint-sized, wisecracking Lorax (voiced, perhaps inevitably, by Danny DeVito); a protagonist (named Ted and voiced by Zac Efron), who replaces the nameless, voiceless protagonist of Seuss's original book.

These are necessary additions for a feature-length children's film. But it's also worth nothing that the nameless, voiceless protagonist of Seuss's The Lorax was nameless and voiceless for a reason: He's an audience surrogate, expressly designed so that children who read the book feel as if The Lorax and The Once-ler are speaking directly to them. The bleak, open-ended conclusion, which is directly addressed to the reader, is the entire point of The Lorax:

And all that the Lorax left here in this mess
was a small pile of rocks, with the one word... 'UNLESS.'
[...] UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
nothing is going to get better. It's not.

It remains to be seen how well The Lorax's film adaptation will channel Seuss's moral—or if it's even going to try. Few things turn audiences off more than the feeling someone is preaching to them. But The Lorax has endured more than 50 years as a children's classic because it matters to people—and if the film can capture that feeling, it's already halfway there.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

Why did Trump’s choice for national-security advisor perform so well in the war on terror, only to find himself forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency?

How does a man like retired Lieutenant General Mike Flynn—who spent his life sifting through information and parsing reports, separating rumor and innuendo from actionable intelligence—come to promote conspiracy theories on social media?

Perhaps it’s less Flynn who’s changed than that the circumstances in which he finds himself—thriving in some roles, and flailing in others.

In diagnostic testing, there’s a basic distinction between sensitivity, or the ability to identify positive results, and specificity, the ability to exclude negative ones. A test with high specificity may avoid generating false positives, but at the price of missing many diagnoses. One with high sensitivity may catch those tricky diagnoses, but also generate false positives along the way. Some people seem to sift through information with high sensitivity, but low specificity—spotting connections that others can’t, and perhaps some that aren’t even there.